The term 'interested in' in a restraint of trade clause requires at least a sharing in the fruits of the success of the business, and does not extend to the remote connection between a landlord's entitlement to rent and the tenant's business success. Mere lending of money or leasing of premises will not usually constitute being 'interested in' a business. Isolated and unsystematic acts of assistance do not constitute being 'employed in' or 'otherwise engaged in' a competing business. When assessing whether a restraint clause has been breached, different acts must be evaluated against the specific prohibitions to which they relate, rather than being aggregated globally.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.